IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v14y2024i1d10.1186_s13561-024-00538-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficiency evaluation of 28 health systems by MCDA and DEA

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Dlouhý

    (Prague University of Economics and Business)

  • Pavel Havlík

    (Prague University of Economics and Business)

Abstract

Background Policymakers, who are constantly discussing growing health expenditures, should know whether the health system is efficient. We can provide them with such information through international health system efficiency evaluations. The main objectives of this study are: (a) to evaluate the efficiency of health systems in 28 developed countries by multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and data envelopment analysis (DEA) and (b) to identify reasonable benchmark countries for the Czech Republic, for which we collect information on the relative importance of health system inputs and outputs. Methods We used MCDA and DEA to evaluate the efficiency of the health systems of 28 developed countries. The models included four health system inputs (health expenditure as a relative share of GDP, the number of physicians, nurses, and hospital beds) and three health system outputs (life expectancy at birth, healthy life expectancy, and infant mortality rate). The sample covers 27 OECD countries and Russia, which is also included in the OECD database. To determine the input and output weights, we used a questionnaire sent to health policy experts in the Czech Republic. Results We obtained subjective information on the relative importance of the health system inputs and outputs from 27 Czech health policy experts. We evaluated health system efficiency using four MCDA and two DEA models. According to the MCDA models, Turkey, Poland, and Israel were found to have efficient health systems. The Czech Republic ranked 16th, 19th, 15th, and 17th. The benchmark countries for the Czech Republic’s health system were Israel, Estonia, Luxembourg, Italy, the UK, Spain, Slovenia, and Canada. The DEA model with the constant returns to scale identified four technically efficient health systems: Turkey, the UK, Canada, and Sweden. The Czech Republic was found to be one of the worst-performing health systems. The DEA model with the variable returns to scale identified 15 technically efficient health systems. We found that efficiency results are quite robust. With two exceptions, the Spearman rank correlations between each pair of models were statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Conclusions During the model formulation, we investigated the pitfalls of efficiency measurement in health care and used several practical solutions. We consider MCDA and DEA, above all, as exploratory methods, not methods providing definitive answers.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Dlouhý & Pavel Havlík, 2024. "Efficiency evaluation of 28 health systems by MCDA and DEA," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:14:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-024-00538-y
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-024-00538-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-024-00538-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-024-00538-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dominique Deprins & Léopold Simar & Henry Tulkens, 2006. "Measuring Labor-Efficiency in Post Offices," Springer Books, in: Parkash Chander & Jacques Drèze & C. Knox Lovell & Jack Mintz (ed.), Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition, chapter 0, pages 285-309, Springer.
    2. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wright, Austin L. & Sonin, Konstantin & Driscoll, Jesse & Wilson, Jarnickae, 2020. "Poverty and economic dislocation reduce compliance with COVID-19 shelter-in-place protocols," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 544-554.
    2. Janvier D. Nkurunziza, 2005. "Reputation and Credit without Collateral in Africa`s Formal Banking," Economics Series Working Papers WPS/2005-02, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    3. Kristiaan Kerstens & Ignace Van de Woestyne, 2018. "Enumeration algorithms for FDH directional distance functions under different returns to scale assumptions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 1067-1078, December.
    4. Vadim Borokhov, 2014. "On the properties of nodal price response matrix in electricity markets," Papers 1404.3678, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2015.
    5. Gan, Li & Ju, Gaosheng & Zhu, Xi, 2015. "Nonparametric estimation of structural labor supply and exact welfare change under nonconvex piecewise-linear budget sets," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 188(2), pages 526-544.
    6. Ravelojaona, Paola, 2019. "On constant elasticity of substitution – Constant elasticity of transformation Directional Distance Functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(2), pages 780-791.
    7. Peterson, Jeffrey M. & Boisvert, Richard N. & de Gorter, Harry, 1999. "Multifunctionality and Optimal Environmental Policies for Agriculture in an Open Economy," Working Papers 127701, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    8. Aldasoro, Iñaki & Delli Gatti, Domenico & Faia, Ester, 2017. "Bank networks: Contagion, systemic risk and prudential policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 164-188.
    9. Gatti, Nicolas & Cecil, Michael & Baylis, Kathy & Estes, Lyndon & Blekking, Jordan & Heckelei, Thomas & Vergopolan, Noemi & Evans, Tom, 2023. "Is closing the agricultural yield gap a “risky” endeavor?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    10. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    11. Delgado, Michael S. & Khanna, Neha, 2015. "Voluntary Pollution Abatement and Regulation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 1-20, April.
    12. Bhattacharya, D., 2018. "Income Effects and Rationalizability in Multinomial Choice Models," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1884, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    13. List, Christian & Polak, Ben, 2010. "Introduction to judgment aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 441-466, March.
    14. Franke, Jörg & Leininger, Wolfgang & Wasser, Cédric, 2018. "Optimal favoritism in all-pay auctions and lottery contests," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 22-37.
    15. J. Vakili & R. Sadighi Dizaji, 2021. "The closest strong efficient targets in the FDH technology: an enumeration method," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 91-105, April.
    16. Auster, Sarah & Kettering, Jeremy & Kochov, Asen, 2024. "Sequential trading with coarse contingencies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    17. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.
    18. Henry TULKENS, 1986. "The Performance Approach In Public Enterprise Economics:," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 429-444, October.
    19. Shino, Junnosuke, 2013. "A positive theory of fixed-rate funds-supplying operations in an accommodative financial environment," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 595-610.
    20. Peysakhovich, Alexander & Plagborg-Møller, Mikkel, 2012. "A note on proper scoring rules and risk aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 357-361.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:14:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-024-00538-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.